I’ve been meaning to write a post for a while on our tactical evolution under Roy Hodgson. We’ve gone from a scrappy insurgency, often playing 4-5-1 under Chris Coleman, past being a very direct up ‘n’ at ’em with Sanchez to a more methodical, well-drilled, passing unit. I wouldn’t neccessarily describe us as defensive under Hodgson but we certainly approach our away games with a plan to frustrate the opposition and nick a goal on the break.
It is understandable that, after three spells with Inter Milan, that there might be a bit of the Italian in our Roy. That certainly shines through in the composition of his side. He’s paid particular attention on our defence since taking over from Sanchez at the start of this calendar year. He’s brought in a new goalkeeper and a domineering centre back to improve our rearguard but there’s also been a strong emphasis on improving the way in which we defend as a side.
Such organisation has characterised Roy’s career as a coach. His sides have always been set up to defend well, but I wouldn’t put him in the category of someone like George Graham. He took Switzerland to the second round of the World Cup in 1994, where he and Jack Charlton were the only Englishman involved in the competition, and for their crucial Group A game, Hodgson adopted a 4-5-1.
He took Inter to a UEFA Cup final in 1996-97, which they eventually lost on penalties after two even legs with Schalke 04. The line-up for the first leg shows the typical Italian formation – with a libero – and three central midfielders, thereby asking the full backs to push on.
In his most recent guise before taking over at Fulham, Hodgson narrowly failed to take Finland to Euro 2008. Unusually for the Finnish national side, they had a chance to qualify in the very last game – and this only enhanced Hodgson’s reputation as a footballing legend in Scandinavia. They played out five 0-0 draws in their fourteen qualifiers (sound familiar?). He varied his formation depending on the opposition but I thought it was interesting that he chose a 4-4-1-1 (similar to the one that saw Seol operating behind Bobby Zamora at the start of the season) for a key qualifier in Serbia.
In our first win under Hodgson, we played a 4-5-1 which I think typified the sort of steel Hodgson wanted to inject into our previously lightweight and defensively weak side. Notice that Leon Andreasen was included as a holding midfielder at the expense of a partner for Erik Nevland and I think that was the way Roy wanted to line-up until so situation got so dire that he felt he had to go for it and play Bullard and Murphy together alone in midfield (something of a risk as we’ve noted before) and give the fit-again Brian McBride a colleague to play alongside up front.
We’ve played with a lot more discipline this season. Danny Murphy has sat a lot deeper in midfield to accomodate the roaming play of Jimmy Bullard. Our midfielders have had strict instructions to tuck in – our full-backs have been given the job of providing width on either side – and track back into deep positions when we are without the ball. Good examples of this have been Zoltan Gera’s disciplined performance against Arsenal earlier this season and also (something which I haven’t seen recognised yet) Clint Dempsey’s defensive work in the second half at White Hart Lane yesterday. Such defensive discipline demands high fitness and also organisation from our forwards: time and time again we’ve seen that Zamora and Johnson aren’t excused from their defensive duties as the first line of defence.
You can see the extent of our discipline in the Telegraph’s density maps from some of previous performances. Have a look at how our midfield was grouped together against Arsenal:
Look how deep Dempsey (23), Bullard and Murphy are in this picture. All three are almost occupying the same position – which is why the latter two are almost completely obscured. Also since how far back Gera is placed.
So what does all this rambling mean? It might be a stretch but I think our tactical set-up owes a lot to the old Italian art of Catenaccio. That glorious word, literally translated means ‘door bolt,’ which describes how defences our designed to prevent the opposition from entering dangerous positions. The system was pioneered by Heleno Herrera, who coached Inter to success in the 1960s, with four man-marking defenders and a deep-lying libero. Few sides play with the libero anymore (it has been replaced by a holding midfielder as the in vogue footballing position) but there is evidence of an influence of the old system on Hodgson’s thinking.
The onus on our full-backs, who are almost wing-backs when we’ve got the ball, to get forward to supplement a ‘narrow’ midfield, and create opportunities is very similar to the way in which Herrera instructed his Inter side to play. Hodgson also likes his sides to play football from the back, witness the way Hangeland had a helping hand in Johnson’s second goal against Wigan by coming out of defence with the ball, and that can also be seen in the way that Bullard often drops deep to collect the ball from his centre back.
Particularly away from home, ‘Fulham nil’ are playing to a blueprint to try and nulify the opposition. Even at the Cottage, the responsibility of the midfield to get back and in behind the opposition when they are on the attack is evident. We’ve only conceded 12 goals in total and it’s definitely down to our system. Perhaps, I’ve attached too much importance to catenaccio but there’s definitely an element of the old Italian philosophy about our football this season.
Excellent article. I agree with what you say. However, this system makes us very poor at turning defence into attack. Our breaks away from defense result in too many players getting into advanced positions only to stop, put their foot around the ball and lay it off sideways or backwards. Tha attack lacks with and we are forced to play too many one-two’s right in front of the oppositiuon defence. We also refuse to play the ball into the space behind the oopposition defence because, I assume, that could result in losing possession. But how are we to score without taking a few risks, particularly in their third? Also, the two full backs do not have the courage to really attack, especially away from home. Solution, more encouragement to run at defences, particularly in wide positions and a pacey left footed midfielder to replace the hapless Davies.
Good stuff Dan. I was wondering about what prompted our defence resurgence and this might just be it. Especially like the look back at Hodgson’s past. Am I right in thinking Ince credited Roy with rescuing his career?
I would agree with Terence that sometimes we’re a little slow on the counter, passing the ball in front of the opposition but then we did score two blinding counter-attack goals towards the end of last season. Kamara at Man City and Nevland at Reading showed what we could do when moving the ball quickly.
It seems us fans are just now collectively realizing just how Italian Hodgson is as a manager.
Its interesting to see how Fulham are “grinding” out results, without using any forms of physicality. The defense is compact, hard to break (most of the time), and not suicidal like under Sanchez.
Offensively there’s much more to want, but 8th at Christmas?? No argument here.
Good stuff, Dan, always nice to have a tactical ponder. I find that you often find yourself drifting into theories that might be right and might not be, but it’s good to turn them over one way or another anyway, and generally leads to a greater understanding of what Roy’s up to.
The Arsenal example is slightly misleading because we were simply thoroughly pegged back by a far superior team. Dempsey was on as a sub, and may not have played for long, and Tony Kallio (#33) was the full time left back. Look at how he and Gera doubled up (on Walcott?) on the left. Kallio’s far advanced of where Konchesky usually plays, doubly stark because it was a game in which we were on the defensive. Intriguing. Murphy and Bullard were closer together than they usually are, but Murphy’s usually about there I think.
I don’t know that this is cataneccio, which, as best I remember, was all about counter-attack. What it is though, is thoroughly Italian. As you suggest, a big part of the modern 4-4-2 is full-backs attacking, but we really don’t do this, partly because neither are great at it, and partly because (away at least) they’re very defensively minded.
There was a thing in the paper the other day about how – this season at least – home advantage has been eroded throughout Europe. The thinking is that away teams are now so compact that it’s difficult to break them down, whereas when the big teams go away from home their opponents, primed to attack, leave space.
The graphic showed that this has happened all over Europe, except for… Italy.
And which is the only team in England bucking the trend? Fulham.
Italian football (which is well detailed in John Foot’s book “Calcio”) is all about the result. People enjoy talking about the thinking behind it, the tactics, the theories, etc. It’s completely foreign to us here, which is why every coaching book seems to be written by an Italian and (perhaps) why all the top managers here are not English (except Roy, who has been abroad a lot).
The slow on the counter thing is, I think, all part of the strangulation of games. I wrote about this after the Villa game, but if we go flying off into a counter attack and then lose the ball the game is suddenly open, and we’re vulnerable to pace and superior ability. By slowing down our own attack you allow the opponents to regroup, effectively:
x x o o
x o x o x o
x o x o x o
x x o o
which makes it very hard for either team to break the game open, ideal if you’re an away team playing against a bigger and better opponent (e.g. Villa, Liverpool, Spurs..)
The opposite is what happens when you let the game get stretched, you have large gaps between the lines, players out of position, and it becomes a free for all. That suits teams like Man City who have the flair and skill and pace to make this count, but is the opposite of what you need to shut a game down.
So we don’t really counter attack too much either, it’s very much a shut-down plan that hopes to create a handful of chances.
At home we’re different in that we do commit more people to attack. Konchesky on the left and Paintsil on the right are *much* more active in attacks when we’re at home, and Bullard is increasingly breaking into the box (until he did this we really had nobody breaking beyond the forwards, which made it quite hard to disturb opponents). This means we have numbers in the attacking areas, which in itself creates chances.
I genuinely believe that Roy is looking to draw all away games and win all the home games. This won’t always work because you’re effectively looking for a perfect defensive performance every time you play, but it’s going to be good enough, all things being equal.
There’s the rub though. The system is fine for what it does, and can be loosened if required, but how will we cope with injuries? What happens when we stop strangling games and start losing them 1-0 again (which will happen)? Our home form needs to hold up and we need some other teams to go on some bad runs. We’re doing exceedingly well, but we have to keep at it.
balls, my x/o map got squashed by the formatting. Oh well.
I think Dan’s point about catenaccio (he and I were discussing this after Spurs last night) was more about the defensive mentality that seems to inbuilt both in that system and Italian football more generally.
For me, the best comparison would be between Hodgson and George Graham who abandoned his free-scoring tendencies to rebuild Arsenal’s defence (and for the best part of three season their attack WAS Ian Wright).
Hodgson’s time in Italy has obviously stayed with him and catenaccio could very easily describe the Finnish team’s mentality during their Euro 2008 qualifiers. Simply for the sake of those of us who travel to watch us away from home, I’d like to see us open up a bit more – particular when the game against Tottenham was there for the winning – but I can see why he was cautious.
I think Jack’s summed up my thoughts re. catenaccio. I wasn’t suggesting that Roy’s adopted the exact tactic but just taken the idea of an organised defence and adapted it to our circumstances.
Terence makes a good point about our lack of width, which is something that’s been bugging me all season. The beauty of watching the Tigana team that stormed the First Division was seeing the likes of Finnan/Goldbaek and Brevett/Fernandes/Boa Morte linking up together and having the ability to take on players.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the solutions you advocate but we’d have to have the players to make it a reality. Clint has already stated that he doesn’t really see himself as a wide player but is happy to do a job for the team, especially as it would help cement his national spot. He can beat players but seems more effective when he comes inside – so perhaps Gera out on the right might be more useful but again I don’t get the impression that he’s the answer.
Upping the pace on the break might be an idea but, as Rich has said, it does leave us vulnerable if we lose the ball and have too many players out of the game. There have been several one-on-one chances this season created by though balls (Johnson v Wigan, Johnson v Newcastle, Johnson & Zamora v Spurs (home), Johnson v Middlesbrough and AJ at the Lane) so I think we do try and play the ball in behind. Kamara and Nevland (twice) scored goals like that last season all in the closing stages of games as teams tried to push up.
Rich – I’m not sure Roy’s out to try and draw all the away games. I’d be disappointed if he was because that would point at limited ambitions, something which he’s always previously discarded. This whole season has been about trying to break of the relegation scrap. We will have to keep at it but I think we’ve got the ability and the kinds of players (Bullard, Murphy, Dempsey, Davies and Gera) who can create chances both home and away.
We do still look a little in terms of our first XI if key players get injured but hopefully the performance at Spurs (minus Hangeland and Bullard for the most part) shows we can produce without some of our ‘stars’. I guess we’ll find out how we can cope against one of the best teams in the country this afternoon if Hangeland and Bullard are still missing.
Interesting debate though. Feel free to keep commenting.
all fair. To me though that Spurs game wasn’t there to be won, I was crapping myself in the last half an hour and we really did have to be at our best to maintain the status quo. I felt that if we had opened up we’d have just let Modric or someone run straight through us. Against this, by doing what we did, the chance to win it all did come, so I think Roy got it about right.
I wasn’t all that unduly worried by Spurs towards the end of the game – easy to say with hindsight I guess, but what did they really create? Modric had a couple of shots from distance plus a header and Bent got in behind us once and Pavlyuchenko had a shot blocked but for all their possession they didn’t really test Schwarzer.
We might have lost the game by being more offensive so I suppose Hodgson did get it right but it would have been nice to see him go for it in the last 20.